I would have guessed the angle to be 30 to 40 degrees just from looking
at John's drawing. I couldn't understand the 13.88 degrees either,
which would be a much less inclined looking angle.


On Feb 1, 2005, at 3:20 PM, Bruce Marcham wrote:

> As I work it out according to the drawing by John it works out to
> 1:1.618 or 2:3.236 (roughly).  However if I take the tangent of the
> angle provided by John (13.88 degrees) I get 0.247.  If I take the
> ratio described above I get a tangent ("y/x" or "opposite over
> adjacent") of 0.618 and an angle of about 32 degrees.
>
> If I do what Eric suggests I end up with a ratio of 1:1.414, an angle
> with a tangent of 0.707, and an angle (looking at John's diagram) of
> 35.26 degrees.
>
> A Google on the subject indicates that the ratio is 0.618 as described
> by John but I don't know where the 13.88 degrees figures in:
>
> http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt669/Student.Folders/Frietag.Mark/
> Homepage/Goldenratio/goldenratio.html
>
> Bruce
>
> P.S.  My graphics book also indicates that the eyes are about 1/2 the
> way from the top of the head to the chin (within 0.02") but they don't
> make it easy to get that number.  They list mean dimensions for a wide
> variety of features but they don't actually give the height of the
> face (I had to work from a dimension from the chin to the top of the
> nose).  The head is 8.80" high, the eyes are 4.42" down from the top,
> and the center of the lips (under the nose) is 1.54" up from the
> bottom of the chin.  This according to Introduction To Engineering
> Graphics; George C. Beakley; Pub. 1975; MacMillan Pub. Co.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pre-patinated plastic gumby block w/ coin slot
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> Hammarberg, Eric
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 1:50 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BP] Golden Ratio
>
>
> Actually, the eyes are half way down on most human faces
>
> Also, I always thought the golden mean was the rectangle developed by
> the
> radius drawn from the diagonal of a square (AKA square root of 2).
> Close but
> not the same as a 2:3 ratio.
>
> Eric Hammarberg
> Director of Preservation
> Senior Associate
> Thornton-Tomasetti Group
> LZA Technology Division
> 641 Avenue of the Americas
> New York, NY  10011
> Telephone: 917.661.8160
> Fax: 917.661.8161
> Mobile: 917.439.3537
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ruth Barton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 1:32 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BP] Golden Ratio
>
> I guess it's like when drawing a picture of a human face you start
> with an
> oval and divide into thirds, put the eyes one third of the way down
> and the
> mouth two thirds of the way down and fill in from there.  Not that I
> can
> draw a credible picture of a human face but I know the rule of thumb
> of how
> to go about it.  Ruth
>
>
>
>
>
> At 7:08 AM -0600 2/1/05, John Callan wrote:
>> Ruth,
>>
>> Golden section, ration, mean, etc.
>>
>> Draw square.  Draw second square beside it.  Draw square with one side
>> using the two earlier squares.  The whole of the four squares is a
>> rectangle, a golden rectangle.  From this point on, add squares and
>> rectangles until your heart's content.  All will make a kind of visual
>> sense.
>>
>> You can also describe this as a proportion.  But the most efficient
>> thing is to take out your protractor, measure the angle and use that
>> angle to produce your golden rectangles.  That way you don't have to
>> go
>> constructing shapes you may not have use for.
>>
>> I place great value on proportion in design.  But since I work
>> primarily with existing buildings of some one else's design, I tend to
>> look for the existing proportions and work within them.  Sometimes
>> they
>> are golden, sometimes they are not.
>>
>> I have a very strong prejudice about roofs that leak.  Its similar to
>> my prejudices about walls that fall down.  I don't care for them.
>> Leaking and falling down are faults that are elemental to good design.
>> I stop here.  To go further may be viewed as slander.
>>
>> -jc
>>
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2005, at 12:42 AM, Ruth Barton wrote:
>>
>>> I guess it's one of those things, "I can't explain it but I know it
>>> when I
>>> see it."  Well, sounds to me like the "Golden Fleece."
>>>
>>> We got us this fancy X-clusive pri-vate skule up heah in the boonies.
>>> They
>>> just built themselfs a new buildin', probly designed by one O' them
>>> fancy
>>> city arc-i-tecs.  It's got them roofs goin' ever which a way.  Any
>>> dern
>>> fool whats lived in this climate for a winter or two would know that
>>> design
>>> is just askin' fer trouble.  Well, now mister, they got the troubles.
>>> I
>>> heered tell they got the leaks in them roofs real bad, yess sir!!
>>> Serves
>>> 'em right, bring in them thar city fellers to put this abomination on
>>> our
>>> landscape.  And that's all I gotta say.  Ruth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 8:36 PM -0600 1/30/05, John Callan wrote:
>>>> Ruth,
>>>>
>>>> It is a very convenient way to lay out a design into patterns of
>>>> rectangles and squares that all have the same proportions.  I don't
>>>> believe for a second that the resulting shapes are individually any
>>>> more beautiful than any other individual shape.  However, as a
>>>> "system"
>>>> they tend to produce designs that hang together without the jarring
>>>> surprises that are found in arbitrary shape and size selection.  Its
>>>> also convenient because a lot of plate glass and spandrel glass is
>>>> produced in these proportions.  Its been in use for a long time.
>>>> The
>>>> Modernists and others who confuse architecture with religion really
>>>> get
>>>> off on it.
>>>>
>>>> As a practical matter for us preservationeers, its good to be able
>>>> to
>>>> recognize it and work with it when you are analyzing a building's
>>>> design.  It helps make the building predictable.  Predictability
>>>> helps
>>>> us be persuasive.
>>>>
>>>> I can not reply directly to Ralph.  I note that he said it was a
>>>> load
>>>> of shit.  He is of course mostly right and very brief.  Now if we
>>>> could
>>>> only get him to take his briefs off his head.
>>>>
>>>> Golden Ration, Golden Mean, Golden Rectangle...all pretty much the
>>>> same
>>>> thing.  BUT!  Golden Mullion was a very special class I once
>>>> survived.
>>>>
>>>> -jc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 30, 2005, at 9:13 PM, Ruth Barton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What is this Golden Ratio?  Is it anything like the rainbow with a
>>>>> pot
>>>>> of
>>>>> gold at the end?  Ruth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At 11:26 AM -0800 1/30/05, Cuyler Page wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I once saw a lecture about the Golden Ratio in which famous works
>>>>> of
>>>>> art
>>>>> were analysized to see if they contained Golden Ratio proportions.
>>>>> The
>>>>> point of the lecture was that we humans are hard-wired to
>>>>> appreciate
>>>>> Golden
>>>>> Ratio proportions, whether created consciously or not.   A famous
>>>>> Jackson
>>>>> Pollack painting, made by dripping paint from the top of a ladder,
>>>>> had
>>>>> recently been sold at auction (the painting) for the most money of
>>>>> any
>>>>> of
>>>>> his works, and featured a big black spot on a yellow background
>>>>> with
>>>>> the
>>>>> spot centred procisely at a Golden Ratio division point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some said he was a weasel, but not all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> cp in bc
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ruth Barton
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Dummerston, VT
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>>>>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>>>>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>>>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>>>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ruth Barton
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> Dummerston, VT
>>>
>>> --
>>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>
> --
> Ruth Barton
> [log in to unmask]
> Dummerston, VT
>
> --
> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> The information in this email and any attachments may contain
> confidential information that is intended solely for the
> attention and use of the named addressee(s).  This message or
> any part thereof must not be disclosed, copied, distributed or
> retained by any person without authorization from the addressee.
> If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender
> immediately, and delete this message.
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
> --
> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>
> --
> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>
>

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>